View Single Post
Old 05-22-2010, 10:05 PM
KG26_Alpha's Avatar
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,796

Originally Posted by BOBC View Post
My memory of the facts about these are that they were not widespread during the Battle.
I have just looked closely at R6693 just prior to the Battle commencing and it is without the stiffening strakes. That then makes the L series, P series also without such. Next I need to find an X series.

I would have to go back through spitfire detailed amendments to see when the instruction for these to be fitted came out.
Also a major sift through books here to focus on that aspect and provide solid evidence. My instant reaction to did they have these though is no. Only added later to those that were still surviving.

It goes without saying that the basic features that denote a Mk1 should exist.

I dont think a list with that many notable differences is counting rivets. I can understand a forum poster saying the roundels are out of place by 3 inches may be deemed such.

Accurate sim or arcade game as someone said, the choice is Oleg's. There is eye candy and there is historical accuracy. Look beyond the stunning 'skins' to the basic structure, should it be right ? Should it look like the item photoed in 1940 ?
Does the Do17Z have its asymetrical glazing, does the Ju88 have BoB period wingtips or later war, does the Defiant have just two brownings. Should the sim aim to get basic details correct, and modify whats done if errors are spotted ?

I simply point these differences out for anyone wishing to go for a Mk1. Take it or leave it. Such notable observations are always going to be met by the phrase rivet counting by some, (do they want notable errors to remain ?) and welcomed to achieve a better result by others.

In this case follow it and it is 100%, follow some of the more notable differences like the rudder pedals and only one fuel gauge, and it will be better for it, not immediately looking like a MkV/II.

Those that don't know their spits wont mind either way, but those that are expecting a strong degree (not 100%) of accuracy will now know they are flying a Mk1.

There are always those that know more....yes... if that advice is available but refused early on in development its a shame, as its just as easy to get things right as it is wrong. I flagged this up a year ago and still it exists, surprises me a little.

Unhappy...not in my case, just surprised if the apparent aim for a quality sim lets such findings pass.

If details on an aircraft or vehicle make it a different mark than is aimed for and the developer is after accuracy, one would presume they are taken on board. Perhaps accuracy within reasonable expectations is not the aim.

Bottom line is, are notable differences to be pointed out to allow for correction, or is a forum simply for responses like 'looks good'...'fab' etc. Its all down to whether the developer has amassed the knowledge base required and is self sufficient with enough experts to ensure the sim meets a certain pre-set standard, the forum simply being a one way advert, or if they seek to find notable changes to be made, observations on errors and so on.

Perhaps its source code can be tweaked after its release by users for them to make corrections, as was Rowans BoB.

As mentioned, all Oleg needs to do is contact me to check on details, its just as easy to get it right as it is wrong. This was sent through a year ago. Along with other basic errors spotted recently on things like Luftwaffe pilot artwork, bowser colours etc I hope these are corrected. I personally wish to be in a Mk1. For others, what the user doesnt know, they can't grieve about. Others though are now also aware its not a Mk1.

Lets not detract though from what is shaping up to be an awesome sim.


Lets just say there has to be a cut off point for detail for all aircraft otherwise nothing will get done with constant nit picking/rivet counting whatever you want to call it.

I would suggest that if someone's not happy submit actual certified manufacturers blueprints, even better to save 1cTeams time, make the aircraft/cockpit yourself and submit it for approval with aforementioned documents.

There's enough errors in the IL21946 that's been going for nearly 10 years to keep the "train spotters" happy, but its still going strong.


Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 05-22-2010 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote